Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 581 | control, N = 291 | treatment, N = 291 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 58 | 50.60 ± 12.71 (25 - 74) | 49.40 ± 13.03 (25 - 74) | 51.80 ± 12.50 (31 - 72) | 0.476 |
gender | 58 | 0.780 | |||
f | 39 (67%) | 19 (66%) | 20 (69%) | ||
m | 19 (33%) | 10 (34%) | 9 (31%) | ||
occupation | 58 | 0.923 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (10%) | 4 (14%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
homemaker | 4 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
other | 2 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
part_time | 9 (16%) | 5 (17%) | 4 (14%) | ||
retired | 14 (24%) | 6 (21%) | 8 (28%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
student | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
unemploy | 17 (29%) | 9 (31%) | 8 (28%) | ||
marital | 58 | >0.999 | |||
divore | 5 (8.6%) | 3 (10%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
married | 13 (22%) | 6 (21%) | 7 (24%) | ||
none | 34 (59%) | 17 (59%) | 17 (59%) | ||
seperation | 3 (5.2%) | 2 (6.9%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
widow | 3 (5.2%) | 1 (3.4%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
edu | 58 | 0.941 | |||
bachelor | 18 (31%) | 9 (31%) | 9 (31%) | ||
diploma | 9 (16%) | 6 (21%) | 3 (10%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
primary | 4 (6.9%) | 1 (3.4%) | 3 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 14 (24%) | 7 (24%) | 7 (24%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
fam_income | 58 | 0.817 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (5.2%) | 1 (3.4%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
12001_14000 | 3 (5.2%) | 2 (6.9%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (8.6%) | 2 (6.9%) | 3 (10%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
18001_20000 | 3 (5.2%) | 3 (10%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (16%) | 6 (21%) | 3 (10%) | ||
2001_4000 | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
4001_6000 | 9 (16%) | 4 (14%) | 5 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
8001_10000 | 4 (6.9%) | 1 (3.4%) | 3 (10%) | ||
below_2000 | 8 (14%) | 3 (10%) | 5 (17%) | ||
medication | 58 | 48 (83%) | 25 (86%) | 23 (79%) | 0.487 |
onset_duration | 58 | 15.09 ± 12.16 (0 - 56) | 17.01 ± 13.49 (1 - 56) | 13.17 ± 10.56 (0 - 35) | 0.233 |
onset_age | 58 | 35.51 ± 13.74 (15 - 64) | 32.39 ± 11.95 (16 - 55) | 38.63 ± 14.87 (15 - 64) | 0.084 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 581 | control, N = 291 | treatment, N = 291 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 58 | 3.24 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.21 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.28 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 0.832 |
recovery_stage_b | 58 | 17.98 ± 2.65 (9 - 23) | 17.93 ± 2.84 (9 - 23) | 18.03 ± 2.49 (14 - 23) | 0.883 |
ras_confidence | 58 | 30.22 ± 4.73 (19 - 40) | 29.76 ± 4.34 (19 - 40) | 30.69 ± 5.13 (20 - 39) | 0.459 |
ras_willingness | 58 | 12.12 ± 1.99 (7 - 15) | 12.07 ± 1.77 (9 - 15) | 12.17 ± 2.22 (7 - 15) | 0.845 |
ras_goal | 58 | 17.45 ± 2.87 (12 - 24) | 17.48 ± 2.73 (12 - 23) | 17.41 ± 3.04 (12 - 24) | 0.928 |
ras_reliance | 58 | 13.29 ± 2.91 (8 - 20) | 13.07 ± 2.72 (8 - 18) | 13.52 ± 3.11 (8 - 20) | 0.562 |
ras_domination | 58 | 9.95 ± 2.24 (3 - 15) | 10.48 ± 1.88 (7 - 15) | 9.41 ± 2.46 (3 - 14) | 0.068 |
symptom | 58 | 30.12 ± 9.75 (14 - 56) | 29.66 ± 9.27 (14 - 48) | 30.59 ± 10.35 (15 - 56) | 0.720 |
slof_work | 58 | 22.22 ± 4.83 (10 - 30) | 22.41 ± 4.52 (15 - 30) | 22.03 ± 5.19 (10 - 30) | 0.768 |
slof_relationship | 58 | 25.52 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 25.34 ± 6.18 (13 - 35) | 25.69 ± 5.75 (11 - 35) | 0.827 |
satisfaction | 58 | 20.72 ± 6.48 (5 - 30) | 19.38 ± 6.06 (5 - 29) | 22.07 ± 6.71 (5 - 30) | 0.115 |
mhc_emotional | 58 | 11.19 ± 3.71 (4 - 18) | 10.97 ± 3.09 (6 - 17) | 11.41 ± 4.28 (4 - 18) | 0.649 |
mhc_social | 58 | 14.50 ± 5.08 (6 - 26) | 14.93 ± 5.09 (7 - 26) | 14.07 ± 5.12 (6 - 23) | 0.523 |
mhc_psychological | 58 | 21.81 ± 5.97 (6 - 36) | 21.48 ± 5.70 (10 - 33) | 22.14 ± 6.30 (6 - 36) | 0.680 |
resilisnce | 58 | 16.52 ± 4.57 (6 - 25) | 16.28 ± 4.46 (6 - 24) | 16.76 ± 4.73 (7 - 25) | 0.691 |
social_provision | 58 | 13.67 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 20) | 13.97 ± 3.36 (5 - 19) | 0.469 |
els_value_living | 58 | 17.16 ± 2.97 (5 - 23) | 16.72 ± 2.52 (12 - 22) | 17.59 ± 3.35 (5 - 23) | 0.273 |
els_life_fulfill | 58 | 12.86 ± 3.27 (4 - 18) | 11.83 ± 3.12 (5 - 17) | 13.90 ± 3.14 (4 - 18) | 0.015 |
els | 58 | 30.02 ± 5.54 (9 - 40) | 28.55 ± 4.53 (20 - 36) | 31.48 ± 6.12 (9 - 40) | 0.043 |
social_connect | 58 | 26.93 ± 9.36 (8 - 48) | 26.93 ± 8.11 (8 - 45) | 26.93 ± 10.61 (8 - 48) | >0.999 |
shs_agency | 58 | 14.26 ± 4.58 (3 - 20) | 13.66 ± 4.25 (3 - 20) | 14.86 ± 4.89 (3 - 20) | 0.320 |
shs_pathway | 58 | 16.50 ± 3.74 (4 - 22) | 15.93 ± 3.50 (8 - 22) | 17.07 ± 3.95 (4 - 22) | 0.250 |
shs | 58 | 30.76 ± 7.78 (7 - 42) | 29.59 ± 7.37 (14 - 41) | 31.93 ± 8.12 (7 - 42) | 0.255 |
esteem | 58 | 12.52 ± 1.25 (10 - 15) | 12.55 ± 1.15 (10 - 14) | 12.48 ± 1.35 (10 - 15) | 0.835 |
mlq_search | 58 | 14.81 ± 3.47 (3 - 21) | 14.79 ± 3.27 (6 - 21) | 14.83 ± 3.71 (3 - 20) | 0.970 |
mlq_presence | 58 | 13.60 ± 4.06 (3 - 21) | 13.86 ± 3.13 (6 - 20) | 13.34 ± 4.86 (3 - 21) | 0.632 |
mlq | 58 | 28.41 ± 6.81 (6 - 41) | 28.66 ± 6.03 (12 - 40) | 28.17 ± 7.62 (6 - 41) | 0.790 |
empower | 58 | 19.55 ± 4.26 (6 - 28) | 19.24 ± 3.88 (11 - 24) | 19.86 ± 4.67 (6 - 28) | 0.584 |
ismi_resistance | 58 | 14.62 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 14.48 ± 2.34 (11 - 19) | 14.76 ± 3.24 (5 - 20) | 0.711 |
ismi_discrimation | 58 | 11.36 ± 3.40 (5 - 19) | 12.41 ± 2.86 (5 - 18) | 10.31 ± 3.61 (5 - 19) | 0.017 |
sss_affective | 58 | 9.91 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 10.66 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 9.17 ± 4.46 (3 - 18) | 0.167 |
sss_behavior | 58 | 9.66 ± 4.17 (3 - 18) | 10.52 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 8.79 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 0.116 |
sss_cognitive | 58 | 8.28 ± 4.20 (3 - 18) | 8.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 18) | 7.86 ± 4.03 (3 - 18) | 0.458 |
sss | 58 | 27.84 ± 11.56 (9 - 54) | 29.86 ± 10.74 (9 - 54) | 25.83 ± 12.18 (9 - 54) | 0.186 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.21 | 0.216 | 2.78, 3.63 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.069 | 0.305 | -0.529, 0.667 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.671 | 0.328 | 0.028, 1.31 | 0.051 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.188 | 0.456 | -1.08, 0.704 | 0.682 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.503 | 16.9, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.103 | 0.711 | -1.29, 1.50 | 0.885 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.215 | 0.749 | -1.25, 1.68 | 0.776 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.684 | 1.040 | -1.35, 2.72 | 0.515 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.939 | 27.9, 31.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.931 | 1.328 | -1.67, 3.53 | 0.486 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 1.248 | -1.44, 3.45 | 0.426 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.223 | 1.731 | -3.62, 3.17 | 0.898 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.372 | 11.3, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.103 | 0.527 | -0.929, 1.14 | 0.845 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.709 | 0.448 | -1.59, 0.170 | 0.126 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.751 | 0.622 | -0.468, 1.97 | 0.238 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.570 | 16.4, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.069 | 0.806 | -1.65, 1.51 | 0.932 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.677 | 0.723 | -2.09, 0.740 | 0.356 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.18 | 1.002 | -0.780, 3.15 | 0.247 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.529 | 12.0, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.448 | 0.748 | -1.02, 1.91 | 0.551 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.054 | 0.503 | -1.04, 0.931 | 0.915 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.29 | 0.696 | -0.072, 2.66 | 0.076 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.418 | 9.66, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.07 | 0.591 | -2.23, 0.089 | 0.075 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.318 | 0.677 | -1.64, 1.01 | 0.641 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.34 | 0.940 | -0.504, 3.18 | 0.163 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.045 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.838 | 26.1, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.931 | 2.600 | -4.16, 6.03 | 0.722 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.851 | 1.335 | -3.47, 1.77 | 0.530 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.51 | 1.849 | -5.14, 2.11 | 0.422 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.4 | 0.902 | 20.6, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.379 | 1.275 | -2.88, 2.12 | 0.767 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.170 | 0.835 | -1.81, 1.47 | 0.840 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.678 | 1.157 | -2.95, 1.59 | 0.564 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.3 | 1.118 | 23.2, 27.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.345 | 1.581 | -2.75, 3.44 | 0.828 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.37 | 1.195 | -3.71, 0.973 | 0.263 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.20 | 1.657 | -2.05, 4.44 | 0.477 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.4 | 1.245 | 16.9, 21.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.69 | 1.760 | -0.760, 6.14 | 0.131 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.31 | 1.577 | -0.781, 5.40 | 0.153 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.91 | 2.187 | -6.20, 2.37 | 0.389 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.697 | 9.60, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.448 | 0.985 | -1.48, 2.38 | 0.651 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.898 | 0.688 | -0.450, 2.25 | 0.204 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.39 | 0.953 | -3.25, 0.483 | 0.159 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.992 | 13.0, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.862 | 1.403 | -3.61, 1.89 | 0.541 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.45 | 1.221 | -0.945, 3.84 | 0.245 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.803 | 1.693 | -4.12, 2.51 | 0.639 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 1.177 | 19.2, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.655 | 1.664 | -2.61, 3.92 | 0.695 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.30 | 1.421 | -1.49, 4.08 | 0.369 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.71 | 1.970 | -5.57, 2.15 | 0.392 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.821 | 14.7, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.483 | 1.161 | -1.79, 2.76 | 0.679 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 0.940 | -0.828, 2.86 | 0.291 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.348 | 1.303 | -2.21, 2.90 | 0.791 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.550 | 12.3, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.586 | 0.778 | -0.939, 2.11 | 0.454 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.456 | 0.649 | -1.73, 0.816 | 0.488 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.966 | 0.900 | -0.798, 2.73 | 0.293 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.549 | 15.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.862 | 0.777 | -0.661, 2.38 | 0.271 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.706 | 0.651 | -0.569, 1.98 | 0.287 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.053 | 0.902 | -1.71, 1.82 | 0.953 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.575 | 10.7, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.07 | 0.813 | 0.475, 3.66 | 0.013 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.59 | 0.692 | 0.236, 2.95 | 0.029 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.43 | 0.959 | -3.31, 0.454 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.092 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.6 | 1.006 | 26.6, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.93 | 1.423 | 0.143, 5.72 | 0.043 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.24 | 1.145 | -0.007, 4.48 | 0.061 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.32 | 1.587 | -4.43, 1.79 | 0.414 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.072 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.710 | 23.6, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 2.418 | -4.74, 4.74 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.80 | 1.268 | -0.685, 4.29 | 0.169 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.442 | 1.757 | -3.89, 3.00 | 0.803 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.865 | 12.0, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.21 | 1.223 | -1.19, 3.60 | 0.327 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.478 | 0.929 | -1.34, 2.30 | 0.611 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.27 | 1.287 | -1.25, 3.80 | 0.331 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.044 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.9 | 0.675 | 14.6, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.14 | 0.954 | -0.732, 3.01 | 0.238 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.526 | 0.731 | -0.906, 1.96 | 0.478 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.054 | 1.013 | -1.93, 2.04 | 0.958 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.430 | 26.8, 32.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.34 | 2.022 | -1.62, 6.31 | 0.251 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.921 | 1.446 | -1.91, 3.76 | 0.530 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.41 | 2.004 | -2.52, 5.34 | 0.488 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.222 | 12.1, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.069 | 0.314 | -0.684, 0.546 | 0.827 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.994 | 0.423 | 0.164, 1.82 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.560 | 0.590 | -1.72, 0.596 | 0.345 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.083 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.637 | 13.5, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.034 | 0.900 | -1.73, 1.80 | 0.970 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.552 | 0.942 | -1.29, 2.40 | 0.563 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.386 | 1.307 | -2.95, 2.18 | 0.770 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.744 | 12.4, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.517 | 1.052 | -2.58, 1.54 | 0.625 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.739 | 0.925 | -1.07, 2.55 | 0.431 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.152 | 1.282 | -2.67, 2.36 | 0.906 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.7 | 1.262 | 26.2, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.483 | 1.784 | -3.98, 3.01 | 0.788 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.27 | 1.690 | -2.04, 4.58 | 0.460 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.611 | 2.344 | -5.20, 3.98 | 0.796 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 0.774 | 17.7, 20.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.621 | 1.095 | -1.53, 2.77 | 0.573 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.378 | 0.544 | -0.689, 1.45 | 0.494 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.130 | 0.754 | -1.35, 1.61 | 0.865 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.489 | 13.5, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.276 | 0.692 | -1.08, 1.63 | 0.691 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.772 | 0.708 | -0.615, 2.16 | 0.284 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.538 | 0.982 | -2.46, 1.39 | 0.588 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.612 | 11.2, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.10 | 0.866 | -3.80, -0.406 | 0.018 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.22 | 0.686 | -2.57, 0.119 | 0.086 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.38 | 0.950 | -0.484, 3.24 | 0.159 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.077 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.734 | 9.22, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.48 | 1.038 | -3.52, 0.551 | 0.158 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.001 | 0.617 | -1.21, 1.21 | 0.999 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.535 | 0.855 | -2.21, 1.14 | 0.538 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.044 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.745 | 9.06, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.72 | 1.054 | -3.79, 0.342 | 0.107 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.754 | 0.693 | -2.11, 0.605 | 0.287 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.746 | 0.961 | -1.14, 2.63 | 0.444 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.69 | 0.782 | 7.16, 10.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.828 | 1.106 | -3.00, 1.34 | 0.457 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.596 | 0.715 | -0.806, 2.00 | 0.413 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.962 | 0.991 | -2.90, 0.981 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 2.102 | 25.7, 34.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -4.03 | 2.972 | -9.86, 1.79 | 0.180 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.062 | 1.603 | -3.20, 3.08 | 0.969 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.880 | 2.220 | -5.23, 3.47 | 0.695 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.78, 3.63], t(75) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.67], t(75) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [0.03, 1.31], t(75) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [0.02, 1.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.70], t(75) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.93 (95% CI [16.95, 18.92], t(75) = 35.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.50], t(75) = 0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.68], t(75) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.62])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.72], t(75) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.00])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [27.92, 31.60], t(75) = 31.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-1.67, 3.53], t(75) = 0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.44, 3.45], t(75) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.68])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-3.62, 3.17], t(75) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.34, 12.80], t(75) = 32.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.14], t(75) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.17], t(75) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.97], t(75) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.37, 18.60], t(75) = 30.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.51], t(75) = -0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-2.09, 0.74], t(75) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.15], t(75) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.00])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.07 (95% CI [12.03, 14.11], t(75) = 24.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.91], t(75) = 0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.93], t(75) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.66], t(75) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.48 (95% CI [9.66, 11.30], t(75) = 25.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.23, 0.09], t(75) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.01], t(75) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.50, 3.18], t(75) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.66 (95% CI [26.05, 33.26], t(75) = 16.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-4.16, 6.03], t(75) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.77], t(75) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-5.14, 2.11], t(75) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.41 (95% CI [20.65, 24.18], t(75) = 24.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.12], t(75) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.47], t(75) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-2.95, 1.59], t(75) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.34 (95% CI [23.15, 27.54], t(75) = 22.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.44], t(75) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.71, 0.97], t(75) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-2.05, 4.44], t(75) = 0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.38 (95% CI [16.94, 21.82], t(75) = 15.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-0.76, 6.14], t(75) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.89])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.31, 95% CI [-0.78, 5.40], t(75) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.91, 95% CI [-6.20, 2.37], t(75) = -0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.60, 12.33], t(75) = 15.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.38], t(75) = 0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.45, 2.25], t(75) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.61])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-3.25, 0.48], t(75) = -1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [12.99, 16.88], t(75) = 15.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-3.61, 1.89], t(75) = -0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [-0.95, 3.84], t(75) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.71])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-4.12, 2.51], t(75) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.48 (95% CI [19.18, 23.79], t(75) = 18.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.61, 3.92], t(75) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-1.49, 4.08], t(75) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-5.57, 2.15], t(75) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.67, 17.88], t(75) = 19.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.76], t(75) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.83, 2.86], t(75) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.66])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.21, 2.90], t(75) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.30, 14.46], t(75) = 24.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.11], t(75) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.82], t(75) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.73], t(75) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.92])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.72 (95% CI [15.65, 17.80], t(75) = 30.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.38], t(75) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.98], t(75) = 1.09, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.65])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.82], t(75) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [10.70, 12.95], t(75) = 20.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [0.47, 3.66], t(75) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.15, 1.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [0.24, 2.95], t(75) = 2.30, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.07, 0.91])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-3.31, 0.45], t(75) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.55 (95% CI [26.58, 30.52], t(75) = 28.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.93, 95% CI [0.14, 5.72], t(75) = 2.06, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.03, 1.00])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.24, 95% CI [-6.55e-03, 4.48], t(75) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.15e-03, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-4.43, 1.79], t(75) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.93 (95% CI [23.58, 30.28], t(75) = 15.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.40e-13, 95% CI [-4.74, 4.74], t(75) = -2.65e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -2.97e-15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [-0.68, 4.29], t(75) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-3.89, 3.00], t(75) = -0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.66 (95% CI [11.96, 15.35], t(75) = 15.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.60], t(75) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.30], t(75) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.25, 3.80], t(75) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.61, 17.25], t(75) = 23.61, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.73, 3.01], t(75) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.96], t(75) = 0.72, p = 0.471; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.04], t(75) = 0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.59 (95% CI [26.78, 32.39], t(75) = 20.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.62, 6.31], t(75) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.76], t(75) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-2.52, 5.34], t(75) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.55 (95% CI [12.12, 12.99], t(75) = 56.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.55], t(75) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [0.16, 1.82], t(75) = 2.35, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.13, 1.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.60], t(75) = -0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.55, 16.04], t(75) = 23.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.80], t(75) = 0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.40], t(75) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.71])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.18], t(75) = -0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.86 (95% CI [12.40, 15.32], t(75) = 18.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.58, 1.54], t(75) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.55], t(75) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.67, 2.36], t(75) = -0.12, p = 0.906; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.66 (95% CI [26.18, 31.13], t(75) = 22.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-3.98, 3.01], t(75) = -0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-2.04, 4.58], t(75) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-5.20, 3.98], t(75) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.24 (95% CI [17.72, 20.76], t(75) = 24.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.77], t(75) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(75) = 0.69, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.61], t(75) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.52, 15.44], t(75) = 29.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.63], t(75) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.16], t(75) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.83])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.46, 1.39], t(75) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.21, 13.61], t(75) = 20.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.10, 95% CI [-3.80, -0.41], t(75) = -2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.11, -0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.12], t(75) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.48, 3.24], t(75) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.95])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.22, 12.09], t(75) = 14.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-3.52, 0.55], t(75) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10e-03, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.21], t(75) = -1.78e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -2.71e-04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-2.21, 1.14], t(75) = -0.63, p = 0.532; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.06, 11.98], t(75) = 14.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.79, 0.34], t(75) = -1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.60], t(75) = -1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.14, 2.63], t(75) = 0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.69 (95% CI [7.16, 10.22], t(75) = 11.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.00, 1.34], t(75) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.00], t(75) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.90, 0.98], t(75) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.86 (95% CI [25.74, 33.98], t(75) = 14.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.03, 95% CI [-9.86, 1.79], t(75) = -1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-3.20, 3.08], t(75) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -5.39e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.23, 3.47], t(75) = -0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 256.368 | 263.552 | -125.184 | 250.368 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 256.176 | 270.542 | -122.088 | 244.176 | 6.192 | 3 | 0.103 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 388.344 | 395.527 | -191.172 | 382.344 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 392.464 | 406.831 | -190.232 | 380.464 | 1.880 | 3 | 0.598 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 484.772 | 491.956 | -239.386 | 478.772 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 489.139 | 503.506 | -238.569 | 477.139 | 1.633 | 3 | 0.652 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 331.998 | 339.181 | -162.999 | 325.998 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 335.239 | 349.605 | -161.619 | 323.239 | 2.759 | 3 | 0.430 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 401.863 | 409.046 | -197.931 | 395.863 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 406.324 | 420.691 | -197.162 | 394.324 | 1.539 | 3 | 0.673 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 383.325 | 390.509 | -188.663 | 377.325 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 381.843 | 396.210 | -184.921 | 369.843 | 7.482 | 3 | 0.058 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 364.040 | 371.223 | -179.020 | 358.040 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 365.442 | 379.808 | -176.721 | 353.442 | 4.598 | 3 | 0.204 |
symptom | null | 3 | 569.475 | 576.658 | -281.738 | 563.475 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 571.660 | 586.027 | -279.830 | 559.660 | 3.815 | 3 | 0.282 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 462.513 | 469.697 | -228.257 | 456.513 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 467.104 | 481.471 | -227.552 | 455.104 | 1.409 | 3 | 0.703 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 503.706 | 510.890 | -248.853 | 497.706 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 508.229 | 522.596 | -248.115 | 496.229 | 1.477 | 3 | 0.688 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 530.970 | 538.154 | -262.485 | 524.970 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 532.823 | 547.190 | -260.411 | 520.823 | 4.147 | 3 | 0.246 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 424.478 | 431.662 | -209.239 | 418.478 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 428.153 | 442.520 | -208.077 | 416.153 | 2.325 | 3 | 0.508 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 491.257 | 498.440 | -242.628 | 485.257 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 494.886 | 509.253 | -241.443 | 482.886 | 2.371 | 3 | 0.499 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 516.719 | 523.902 | -255.359 | 510.719 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 521.709 | 536.076 | -254.855 | 509.709 | 1.010 | 3 | 0.799 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 458.822 | 466.006 | -226.411 | 452.822 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 461.093 | 475.460 | -224.546 | 449.093 | 3.729 | 3 | 0.292 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 394.019 | 401.202 | -194.009 | 388.019 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 397.640 | 412.007 | -192.820 | 385.640 | 2.379 | 3 | 0.498 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 395.653 | 402.837 | -194.827 | 389.653 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 397.498 | 411.865 | -192.749 | 385.498 | 4.155 | 3 | 0.245 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 409.915 | 417.098 | -201.957 | 403.915 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 405.621 | 419.987 | -196.810 | 393.621 | 10.294 | 3 | 0.016 |
els | null | 3 | 496.073 | 503.256 | -245.036 | 490.073 | |||
els | random | 6 | 493.791 | 508.158 | -240.896 | 481.791 | 8.281 | 3 | 0.041 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 558.135 | 565.318 | -276.067 | 552.135 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 560.844 | 575.211 | -274.422 | 548.844 | 3.290 | 3 | 0.349 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 466.499 | 473.683 | -230.250 | 460.499 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 466.790 | 481.157 | -227.395 | 454.790 | 5.709 | 3 | 0.127 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 423.807 | 430.991 | -208.904 | 417.807 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 426.993 | 441.360 | -207.496 | 414.993 | 2.814 | 3 | 0.421 |
shs | null | 3 | 544.832 | 552.016 | -269.416 | 538.832 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 545.675 | 560.042 | -266.838 | 533.675 | 5.157 | 3 | 0.161 |
esteem | null | 3 | 268.021 | 275.204 | -131.010 | 262.021 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 266.699 | 281.066 | -127.350 | 254.699 | 7.321 | 3 | 0.062 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 424.817 | 432.000 | -209.408 | 418.817 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 430.425 | 444.791 | -209.212 | 418.425 | 0.392 | 3 | 0.942 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 444.036 | 451.219 | -219.018 | 438.036 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 448.606 | 462.973 | -218.303 | 436.606 | 1.430 | 3 | 0.699 |
mlq | null | 3 | 532.196 | 539.380 | -263.098 | 526.196 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 537.302 | 551.669 | -262.651 | 525.302 | 0.894 | 3 | 0.827 |
empower | null | 3 | 426.004 | 433.188 | -210.002 | 420.004 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 430.115 | 444.482 | -209.057 | 418.115 | 1.890 | 3 | 0.596 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 382.323 | 389.507 | -188.162 | 376.323 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 386.921 | 401.288 | -187.461 | 374.921 | 1.402 | 3 | 0.705 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 414.589 | 421.772 | -204.294 | 408.589 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 412.671 | 427.038 | -200.336 | 400.671 | 7.918 | 3 | 0.048 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 426.804 | 433.988 | -210.402 | 420.804 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 429.454 | 443.820 | -208.727 | 417.454 | 3.351 | 3 | 0.341 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 434.033 | 441.216 | -214.017 | 428.033 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 436.429 | 450.796 | -212.214 | 424.429 | 3.604 | 3 | 0.307 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 439.462 | 446.645 | -216.731 | 433.462 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 443.504 | 457.871 | -215.752 | 431.504 | 1.958 | 3 | 0.581 |
sss | null | 3 | 592.056 | 599.240 | -293.028 | 586.056 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 595.537 | 609.903 | -291.768 | 583.537 | 2.520 | 3 | 0.472 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 29 | 3.21 ± 1.16 | 29 | 3.28 ± 1.16 | 0.822 | -0.082 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 11 | 3.88 ± 1.10 | -0.798 | 12 | 3.76 ± 1.10 | -0.574 | 0.795 | 0.142 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 29 | 17.93 ± 2.71 | 29 | 18.03 ± 2.71 | 0.885 | -0.054 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 11 | 18.15 ± 2.53 | -0.113 | 12 | 18.93 ± 2.54 | -0.470 | 0.460 | -0.412 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 29 | 29.76 ± 5.06 | 29 | 30.69 ± 5.06 | 0.486 | -0.299 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 11 | 30.77 ± 4.47 | -0.323 | 12 | 31.47 ± 4.50 | -0.252 | 0.706 | -0.227 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 29 | 12.07 ± 2.01 | 29 | 12.17 ± 2.01 | 0.845 | -0.094 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 11 | 11.36 ± 1.69 | 0.642 | 12 | 12.21 ± 1.71 | -0.037 | 0.233 | -0.773 |
ras_goal | 1st | 29 | 17.48 ± 3.07 | 29 | 17.41 ± 3.07 | 0.932 | 0.038 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 11 | 16.81 ± 2.65 | 0.378 | 12 | 17.92 ± 2.68 | -0.283 | 0.319 | -0.622 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 29 | 13.07 ± 2.85 | 29 | 13.52 ± 2.85 | 0.551 | -0.369 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 11 | 13.02 ± 2.19 | 0.044 | 12 | 14.76 ± 2.23 | -1.021 | 0.063 | -1.435 |
ras_domination | 1st | 29 | 10.48 ± 2.25 | 29 | 9.41 ± 2.25 | 0.075 | 0.605 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 11 | 10.16 ± 2.19 | 0.180 | 12 | 10.43 ± 2.19 | -0.578 | 0.769 | -0.153 |
symptom | 1st | 29 | 29.66 ± 9.90 | 29 | 30.59 ± 9.90 | 0.722 | -0.293 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 11 | 28.80 ± 7.02 | 0.267 | 12 | 28.22 ± 7.21 | 0.743 | 0.845 | 0.183 |
slof_work | 1st | 29 | 22.41 ± 4.86 | 29 | 22.03 ± 4.86 | 0.767 | 0.188 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 11 | 22.24 ± 3.69 | 0.085 | 12 | 21.19 ± 3.77 | 0.421 | 0.499 | 0.525 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 29 | 25.34 ± 6.02 | 29 | 25.69 ± 6.02 | 0.828 | -0.118 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 11 | 23.98 ± 4.83 | 0.471 | 12 | 25.52 ± 4.90 | 0.059 | 0.450 | -0.530 |
satisfaction | 1st | 29 | 19.38 ± 6.70 | 29 | 22.07 ± 6.70 | 0.131 | -0.688 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 11 | 21.69 ± 5.79 | -0.591 | 12 | 22.47 ± 5.84 | -0.102 | 0.749 | -0.199 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 29 | 10.97 ± 3.75 | 29 | 11.41 ± 3.75 | 0.651 | -0.269 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 11 | 11.86 ± 2.92 | -0.539 | 12 | 10.93 ± 2.97 | 0.293 | 0.448 | 0.563 |
mhc_social | 1st | 29 | 14.93 ± 5.34 | 29 | 14.07 ± 5.34 | 0.541 | 0.286 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 11 | 16.38 ± 4.55 | -0.480 | 12 | 14.71 ± 4.60 | -0.214 | 0.386 | 0.552 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 29 | 21.48 ± 6.34 | 29 | 22.14 ± 6.34 | 0.695 | -0.187 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 11 | 22.78 ± 5.35 | -0.370 | 12 | 21.72 ± 5.41 | 0.118 | 0.639 | 0.302 |
resilisnce | 1st | 29 | 16.28 ± 4.42 | 29 | 16.76 ± 4.42 | 0.679 | -0.210 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 11 | 17.29 ± 3.65 | -0.440 | 12 | 18.12 ± 3.69 | -0.591 | 0.589 | -0.361 |
social_provision | 1st | 29 | 13.38 ± 2.96 | 29 | 13.97 ± 2.96 | 0.454 | -0.367 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 11 | 12.92 ± 2.48 | 0.286 | 12 | 14.48 ± 2.51 | -0.319 | 0.140 | -0.972 |
els_value_living | 1st | 29 | 16.72 ± 2.96 | 29 | 17.59 ± 2.96 | 0.271 | -0.539 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 11 | 17.43 ± 2.48 | -0.441 | 12 | 18.35 ± 2.51 | -0.475 | 0.382 | -0.572 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 29 | 11.83 ± 3.10 | 29 | 13.90 ± 3.10 | 0.013 | -1.213 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 11 | 13.42 ± 2.61 | -0.934 | 12 | 14.06 ± 2.64 | -0.097 | 0.560 | -0.376 |
els | 1st | 29 | 28.55 ± 5.42 | 29 | 31.48 ± 5.42 | 0.044 | -1.045 | ||
els | 2nd | 11 | 30.79 ± 4.46 | -0.798 | 12 | 32.40 ± 4.52 | -0.329 | 0.391 | -0.576 |
social_connect | 1st | 29 | 26.93 ± 9.21 | 29 | 26.93 ± 9.21 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 11 | 28.73 ± 6.56 | -0.595 | 12 | 28.29 ± 6.74 | -0.449 | 0.874 | 0.146 |
shs_agency | 1st | 29 | 13.66 ± 4.66 | 29 | 14.86 ± 4.66 | 0.328 | -0.534 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 11 | 14.13 ± 3.74 | -0.211 | 12 | 16.61 ± 3.80 | -0.775 | 0.119 | -1.097 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 29 | 15.93 ± 3.63 | 29 | 17.07 ± 3.63 | 0.238 | -0.638 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 11 | 16.46 ± 2.93 | -0.295 | 12 | 17.65 ± 2.97 | -0.326 | 0.336 | -0.669 |
shs | 1st | 29 | 29.59 ± 7.70 | 29 | 31.93 ± 7.70 | 0.251 | -0.669 | ||
shs | 2nd | 11 | 30.51 ± 6.05 | -0.263 | 12 | 34.26 ± 6.15 | -0.665 | 0.144 | -1.071 |
esteem | 1st | 29 | 12.55 ± 1.20 | 29 | 12.48 ± 1.20 | 0.827 | 0.058 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 11 | 13.55 ± 1.23 | -0.831 | 12 | 12.92 ± 1.23 | -0.363 | 0.224 | 0.526 |
mlq_search | 1st | 29 | 14.79 ± 3.43 | 29 | 14.83 ± 3.43 | 0.970 | -0.014 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 11 | 15.34 ± 3.19 | -0.230 | 12 | 14.99 ± 3.21 | -0.069 | 0.793 | 0.147 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 29 | 13.86 ± 4.00 | 29 | 13.34 ± 4.00 | 0.625 | 0.226 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 11 | 14.60 ± 3.43 | -0.323 | 12 | 13.93 ± 3.46 | -0.256 | 0.643 | 0.293 |
mlq | 1st | 29 | 28.66 ± 6.79 | 29 | 28.17 ± 6.79 | 0.788 | 0.114 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 11 | 29.92 ± 6.02 | -0.300 | 12 | 28.83 ± 6.07 | -0.155 | 0.666 | 0.259 |
empower | 1st | 29 | 19.24 ± 4.17 | 29 | 19.86 ± 4.17 | 0.573 | -0.479 | ||
empower | 2nd | 11 | 19.62 ± 2.93 | -0.292 | 12 | 20.37 ± 3.02 | -0.392 | 0.547 | -0.579 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 29 | 14.48 ± 2.64 | 29 | 14.76 ± 2.64 | 0.691 | -0.154 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 11 | 15.25 ± 2.43 | -0.430 | 12 | 14.99 ± 2.44 | -0.130 | 0.797 | 0.146 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 29 | 12.41 ± 3.30 | 29 | 10.31 ± 3.30 | 0.018 | 1.255 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 11 | 11.19 ± 2.70 | 0.730 | 12 | 10.46 ± 2.73 | -0.092 | 0.524 | 0.432 |
sss_affective | 1st | 29 | 10.66 ± 3.95 | 29 | 9.17 ± 3.95 | 0.158 | 1.001 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 11 | 10.65 ± 2.92 | 0.001 | 12 | 8.64 ± 2.98 | 0.362 | 0.105 | 1.363 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 29 | 10.52 ± 4.01 | 29 | 8.79 ± 4.01 | 0.107 | 1.032 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 11 | 9.76 ± 3.06 | 0.451 | 12 | 8.79 ± 3.12 | 0.004 | 0.450 | 0.585 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 29 | 8.69 ± 4.21 | 29 | 7.86 ± 4.21 | 0.457 | 0.480 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 11 | 9.29 ± 3.19 | -0.346 | 12 | 7.50 ± 3.26 | 0.212 | 0.187 | 1.038 |
sss | 1st | 29 | 29.86 ± 11.32 | 29 | 25.83 ± 11.32 | 0.180 | 1.054 | ||
sss | 2nd | 11 | 29.80 ± 8.12 | 0.016 | 12 | 24.89 ± 8.33 | 0.246 | 0.156 | 1.284 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(69.24) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.68)
2st
t(69.44) = -0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.80)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(68.55) = 0.15, p = 0.885, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.52)
2st
t(69.22) = 0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.90)
ras_confidence
1st
t(65.33) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.58)
2st
t(69.52) = 0.38, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.03 to 4.44)
ras_willingness
1st
t(63.28) = 0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.16)
2st
t(71.19) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.27)
ras_goal
1st
t(64.29) = -0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.54)
2st
t(70.21) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.33)
ras_reliance
1st
t(60.15) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.94)
2st
t(75.89) = 1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -1.43, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.58)
ras_domination
1st
t(71.60) = -1.81, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.11)
2st
t(70.84) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.10)
symptom
1st
t(58.28) = 0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-4.27 to 6.13)
2st
t(76.41) = -0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-6.49 to 5.33)
slof_work
1st
t(59.92) = -0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.93 to 2.17)
2st
t(76.23) = -0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-4.16 to 2.04)
slof_relationship
1st
t(61.46) = 0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.82 to 3.51)
2st
t(73.75) = 0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.50 to 5.59)
satisfaction
1st
t(64.27) = 1.53, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.83 to 6.21)
2st
t(70.22) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-4.06 to 5.62)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(60.53) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.42)
2st
t(75.30) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.51)
mhc_social
1st
t(63.68) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-3.67 to 1.94)
2st
t(70.76) = -0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.47 to 2.14)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(63.34) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.67 to 3.98)
2st
t(71.12) = -0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-5.54 to 3.42)
resilisnce
1st
t(62.45) = 0.42, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.80)
2st
t(72.25) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.22 to 3.89)
social_provision
1st
t(62.93) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.14)
2st
t(71.61) = 1.49, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.63)
els_value_living
1st
t(62.99) = 1.11, p = 0.271, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.41)
2st
t(71.53) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.99)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(63.27) = 2.54, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.44 to 3.69)
2st
t(71.20) = 0.59, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.83)
els
1st
t(62.34) = 2.06, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.77)
2st
t(72.39) = 0.86, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.12 to 5.35)
social_connect
1st
t(58.39) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-4.84 to 4.84)
2st
t(76.60) = -0.16, p = 0.874, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-5.97 to 5.08)
shs_agency
1st
t(61.52) = 0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.65)
2st
t(73.66) = 1.58, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -1.10, 95% CI (-0.65 to 5.62)
shs_pathway
1st
t(61.64) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.77 to 3.05)
2st
t(73.47) = 0.97, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.65)
shs
1st
t(60.79) = 1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.70 to 6.39)
2st
t(74.86) = 1.48, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 8.82)
esteem
1st
t(77.00) = -0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.56)
2st
t(77.00) = -1.23, p = 0.224, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.39)
mlq_search
1st
t(68.31) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.83)
2st
t(69.16) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.02 to 2.31)
mlq_presence
1st
t(63.89) = -0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.58)
2st
t(70.56) = -0.47, p = 0.643, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-3.54 to 2.20)
mlq
1st
t(65.52) = -0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-4.05 to 3.08)
2st
t(69.44) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-6.13 to 3.94)
empower
1st
t(58.13) = 0.57, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.81)
2st
t(76.05) = 0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.22)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(67.61) = 0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.66)
2st
t(69.06) = -0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.76)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(62.10) = -2.43, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-3.83 to -0.37)
2st
t(72.75) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.98 to 1.53)
sss_affective
1st
t(59.15) = -1.43, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-3.56 to 0.59)
2st
t(76.95) = -1.64, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 1.36, 95% CI (-4.47 to 0.43)
sss_behavior
1st
t(59.95) = -1.64, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.38)
2st
t(76.17) = -0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-3.54 to 1.59)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(59.80) = -0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.04 to 1.39)
2st
t(76.37) = -1.33, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-4.47 to 0.89)
sss
1st
t(58.54) = -1.36, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 1.05, 95% CI (-9.98 to 1.91)
2st
t(76.79) = -1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-11.75 to 1.92)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(30.85) = 1.50, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.14)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(30.17) = 1.23, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.40)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(27.34) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.28)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(25.75) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.94)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(26.51) = 0.72, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.95)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(23.57) = 2.55, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.24)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(33.48) = 1.54, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.37)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(22.38) = -1.84, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.30)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(23.42) = -1.05, p = 0.607, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.51 to 0.82)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(24.46) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.56 to 2.21)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(26.50) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.75 to 3.55)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(23.83) = -0.73, p = 0.942, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.89)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(26.05) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.08)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(25.80) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.25 to 2.42)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(25.15) = 1.50, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.24)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(25.50) = 0.81, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.81)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(25.54) = 1.20, p = 0.480, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.06)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(25.75) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.55)
els
1st vs 2st
t(25.08) = 0.83, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.36 to 3.21)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(22.45) = 1.11, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.89)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(24.50) = 1.95, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.10 to 3.61)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(24.58) = 0.82, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.04)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(24.00) = 1.67, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.56 to 5.22)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(47.29) = 1.04, p = 0.610, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.28)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(29.94) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.05)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(26.21) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.43)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(27.49) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.72 to 4.03)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(22.28) = 0.97, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.59)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(29.29) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.65)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(24.90) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.52)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(22.93) = -0.90, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.70)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(23.44) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.38)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(23.35) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.06)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(22.54) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-4.14 to 2.25)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(31.59) = 2.01, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.35)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(30.86) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.77)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(27.78) = 0.80, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.60)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(26.08) = -1.56, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.22)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(26.89) = -0.92, p = 0.727, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.18 to 0.83)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(23.74) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.99)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(34.47) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.09)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(22.46) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.63 to 1.93)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(23.57) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.57)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(24.69) = -1.14, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.12)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(26.88) = 1.45, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.97 to 5.59)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(24.01) = 1.30, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.33)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(26.40) = 1.17, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.99)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(26.12) = 0.90, p = 0.750, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.66 to 4.25)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(25.43) = 1.07, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.97)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(25.80) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.89)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(25.85) = 1.07, p = 0.586, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.06)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(26.07) = 2.27, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.03)
els
1st vs 2st
t(25.35) = 1.93, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.14 to 4.62)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(22.53) = 1.41, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.84 to 4.44)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(24.73) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.41)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(24.82) = 0.71, p = 0.964, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.05)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(24.20) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.93)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(49.53) = 2.30, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.86)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(30.60) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.51)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(26.57) = 0.79, p = 0.874, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.18 to 2.66)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(27.94) = 0.74, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.24 to 4.78)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(22.36) = 0.69, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.51)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(29.90) = 1.07, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.24)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(25.16) = -1.77, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-2.65 to 0.20)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(23.05) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.28)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(23.60) = -1.08, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.69)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(23.50) = 0.83, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.08)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(22.63) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.40 to 3.27)